2 ms·

DOGE progress bar, https://doge-tracker.com/ https://doge-tracker.com/ 515 Days until July 4th, 2026 $1.82B Taxpayer Dollars Saved of $2T Goal For maximum

DOGE progress bar, https://doge-tracker.com/ https://doge-tracker.com/ 515 Days until July 4th, 2026 $1.82B Taxpayer Dollars Saved of $2T Goal For maximum transparency, this could be converted to an OSS repo with source code and vetted citations.

searke 2y ago
You can't claim to have "saved" money by destroying programs funded by congress that you have no authority to destroy. Especially when the long term costs of destroying those programs are going to be enormous.
- walterbell 2y ago
  If DOGE will document their claimed savings publicly, those claims can be tracked and challenged publicly. According to their claimed schedule, this will continue for the next 2 years. There can be case-by-case reviews by journalists, lawyers and courts.
  - searke 2y ago
    You are the one who is claiming that they've saved $1.82 Billion dolars by posting some random website that thinks illegally destroying a federal agency is fiscally responsible.
    - walterbell 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - invalidname 2y ago
        I'm not a fan of DEI so this isn't in defense of that policy. But are you really comparing it to the KKK? Seriously?
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        [flagged]
        invalidname 2y ago
        I'm a Jew (atheist). I don't think it's correct to compare well meaning idiots with people who literally kill people.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Just embrace it. If they’re making claims, it would actually be prudent to document those claims and ask them about their methodology. Ask them if they consider any costs from second-order effects as subtracting from the total. If not, why not? Calculate the totals yourself. Report the data to as many as possible. If you think it will look as bad as I do, there’s every reason to.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  We're the DEI initiatives programs directly funded by legislation? Trump's executive order only stopped funding that wasn't required by legislation. If those programs are going to have long-term benefit, then they really should be directed by Congress and not by an autocratic president.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  The president has authority to run these programs, every president has. DOGE is advising the president and the president is choosing what to do. There are a lot of people on this site claiming this is not legal for some reason but not really citing any law.
  - whateveracct 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      There's nothing on this page explaining how Trump changing how USAID works is unconstitutional.
      - jonahbenton 2y ago
        USAID is an entity created by Congress, a separate branch of government, via legislation, not via executive order. It lives in a separate universe, in legal terms, than entities created by executive order. This is called separation of powers. The executive branch cannot make substantive changes to an entity created by Congress due to separation of powers. It also cannot prevent moneys allocated by Congress to USAID from being spent, due to impoundment. These are tenets for you to learn, not argue about. The world was not invented with your birth, when you fell out of the coconut tree. You live in an inheritance, a world in which all of this- laws, independent branches, etc etc was already worked out, over many distinct countries and legal regimes over thousands of years.
yibg 2y ago
"I saved you a tone of money by taking your credit cards and bank accounts without authorization. Now your expenses are way down!"
- walterbell 2y ago
  A court has already intervened to block the payment freeze, https://archive.is/Y5KWx https://archive.is/Y5KWx > A federal judge said on Monday that she intended to temporarily block the Trump administration from imposing a sweeping freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, adding to the pushback against an effort by the White House’s Office and Management and Budget.
nonchalantsui 2y ago
>Stalin tracker, 1933 >5 million soviet rubles saved due to closing “ineffective farms” Who knew it could be that simple!

searke 2y ago

You can't claim to have "saved" money by destroying programs funded by congress that you have no authority to destroy. Especially when the long term costs of destroying those programs are going to be enormous.

walterbell 2y ago
If DOGE will document their claimed savings publicly, those claims can be tracked and challenged publicly. According to their claimed schedule, this will continue for the next 2 years. There can be case-by-case reviews by journalists, lawyers and courts.
- searke 2y ago
  You are the one who is claiming that they've saved $1.82 Billion dolars by posting some random website that thinks illegally destroying a federal agency is fiscally responsible.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - invalidname 2y ago
      I'm not a fan of DEI so this isn't in defense of that policy. But are you really comparing it to the KKK? Seriously?
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        [flagged]
        invalidname 2y ago
        I'm a Jew (atheist). I don't think it's correct to compare well meaning idiots with people who literally kill people.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Just embrace it. If they’re making claims, it would actually be prudent to document those claims and ask them about their methodology. Ask them if they consider any costs from second-order effects as subtracting from the total. If not, why not? Calculate the totals yourself. Report the data to as many as possible. If you think it will look as bad as I do, there’s every reason to.
readthenotes1 2y ago
We're the DEI initiatives programs directly funded by legislation? Trump's executive order only stopped funding that wasn't required by legislation. If those programs are going to have long-term benefit, then they really should be directed by Congress and not by an autocratic president.
Dig1t 2y ago
The president has authority to run these programs, every president has. DOGE is advising the president and the president is choosing what to do. There are a lot of people on this site claiming this is not legal for some reason but not really citing any law.
- whateveracct 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    There's nothing on this page explaining how Trump changing how USAID works is unconstitutional.
    - jonahbenton 2y ago
      USAID is an entity created by Congress, a separate branch of government, via legislation, not via executive order. It lives in a separate universe, in legal terms, than entities created by executive order. This is called separation of powers. The executive branch cannot make substantive changes to an entity created by Congress due to separation of powers. It also cannot prevent moneys allocated by Congress to USAID from being spent, due to impoundment. These are tenets for you to learn, not argue about. The world was not invented with your birth, when you fell out of the coconut tree. You live in an inheritance, a world in which all of this- laws, independent branches, etc etc was already worked out, over many distinct countries and legal regimes over thousands of years.

yibg 2y ago

"I saved you a tone of money by taking your credit cards and bank accounts without authorization. Now your expenses are way down!"

walterbell 2y ago
A court has already intervened to block the payment freeze, https://archive.is/Y5KWx https://archive.is/Y5KWx > A federal judge said on Monday that she intended to temporarily block the Trump administration from imposing a sweeping freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, adding to the pushback against an effort by the White House’s Office and Management and Budget.

nonchalantsui 2y ago

>Stalin tracker, 1933 >5 million soviet rubles saved due to closing “ineffective farms” Who knew it could be that simple!